"And speaking as someone who (for the time being) lacks health coverage, I would take Oregon's would-have-been, imperfect, single-payer system any day over the employer-based system we have now."

So much for that "moderate" tag you used to cling to. This certainly puts you about as far left as any of the kooky fringe out there. Which is kinda funny considering how hard you used to argue to the contrary, when I called you on this phoney b.s. "moderate" tag in the not too distant past.

"And speaking as someone who (for the time being) lacks health coverage, I would take Oregon's would-have-been, imperfect, single-payer system any day over the employer-based system we have now."

So much for that "moderate" tag you used to cling to. This certainly puts you about as far left as any of the kooky fringe out there. Which is kinda funny considering how hard you used to argue to the contrary, when I called you on this phoney b.s. "moderate" tag in the not too distant past.

"And speaking as someone who (for the time being) lacks health coverage, I would take Oregon's would-have-been, imperfect, single-payer system any day over the employer-based system we have now."

So much for that "moderate" tag you used to cling to. This certainly puts you about as far left as any of the kooky fringe out there. Which is kinda funny considering how hard you used to argue to the contrary, when I called you on this phoney b.s. "moderate" tag in the not too distant past.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

"And speaking as someone who (for the time being) lacks health coverage, I would take Oregon's would-have-been, imperfect, single-payer system any day over the employer-based system we have now."

So much for that "moderate" tag you used to cling to. This certainly puts you about as far left as any of the kooky fringe out there. Which is kinda funny considering how hard you used to argue to the contrary, when I called you on this phoney b.s. "moderate" tag in the not too distant past.

me:

You both seem members of the keepers of odd knowledge...why one's health is a matter of the government or one's employer is beyond me. A personal payment for health maintainace and the pooling of risk for catastrophic costs in private, state-wide or other various "schemes" seems a better plan than either single-payer (sic)or employer (even sic-er) payer plans.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

"And speaking as someone who (for the time being) lacks health coverage, I would take Oregon's would-have-been, imperfect, single-payer system any day over the employer-based system we have now."

So much for that "moderate" tag you used to cling to. This certainly puts you about as far left as any of the kooky fringe out there. Which is kinda funny considering how hard you used to argue to the contrary, when I called you on this phoney b.s. "moderate" tag in the not too distant past.

me:

You both seem members of the keepers of odd knowledge...why one's health is a matter of the government or one's employer is beyond me. A personal payment for health maintainace and the pooling of risk for catastrophic costs in private, state-wide or other various "schemes" seems a better plan than either single-payer (sic)or employer (even sic-er) payer plans.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

"And speaking as someone who (for the time being) lacks health coverage, I would take Oregon's would-have-been, imperfect, single-payer system any day over the employer-based system we have now."

So much for that "moderate" tag you used to cling to. This certainly puts you about as far left as any of the kooky fringe out there. Which is kinda funny considering how hard you used to argue to the contrary, when I called you on this phoney b.s. "moderate" tag in the not too distant past.

me:

You both seem members of the keepers of odd knowledge...why one's health is a matter of the government or one's employer is beyond me. A personal payment for health maintainace and the pooling of risk for catastrophic costs in private, state-wide or other various "schemes" seems a better plan than either single-payer (sic)or employer (even sic-er) payer plans.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

You both seem members of the keepers of odd knowledge...why one's health is a matter of the government or one's employer is beyond me. A personal payment for health maintainace and the pooling of risk for catastrophic costs in private, state-wide or other various "schemes" seems a better plan than either single-payer (sic)or employer (even sic-er) payer plans.

Funny, I don't recall giving my two cents worth on the healthcare issue. Except, of course, to note, as did nearly seventy-eight percent of Oregonans, that a government run system would lead straight to poor care, bancruptcy or both.

Do I like the present-state of the healthcare industry (still, by far, the best in the world)?

No.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

You both seem members of the keepers of odd knowledge...why one's health is a matter of the government or one's employer is beyond me. A personal payment for health maintainace and the pooling of risk for catastrophic costs in private, state-wide or other various "schemes" seems a better plan than either single-payer (sic)or employer (even sic-er) payer plans.

Funny, I don't recall giving my two cents worth on the healthcare issue. Except, of course, to note, as did nearly seventy-eight percent of Oregonans, that a government run system would lead straight to poor care, bancruptcy or both.

Do I like the present-state of the healthcare industry (still, by far, the best in the world)?

No.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

You both seem members of the keepers of odd knowledge...why one's health is a matter of the government or one's employer is beyond me. A personal payment for health maintainace and the pooling of risk for catastrophic costs in private, state-wide or other various "schemes" seems a better plan than either single-payer (sic)or employer (even sic-er) payer plans.

Funny, I don't recall giving my two cents worth on the healthcare issue. Except, of course, to note, as did nearly seventy-eight percent of Oregonans, that a government run system would lead straight to poor care, bancruptcy or both.

Do I like the present-state of the healthcare industry (still, by far, the best in the world)?

No.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

"And speaking as someone who (for the time being) lacks health coverage, I would take Oregon's would-have-been, imperfect, single-payer system any day over the employer-based system we have now."

So much for that "moderate" tag you used to cling to. This certainly puts you about as far left as any of the kooky fringe out there. Which is kinda funny considering how hard you used to argue to the contrary, when I called you on this phoney b.s. "moderate" tag in the not too distant past.

Bite me.

To be honest, I'm still and always have been conservative-leaning on many social issues-- it's the Bush economics that I have a BIG problem with.

...which I won't bother to go into here. Because I don't have to justify myself to you, or anyone else.

Good day.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

"And speaking as someone who (for the time being) lacks health coverage, I would take Oregon's would-have-been, imperfect, single-payer system any day over the employer-based system we have now."

So much for that "moderate" tag you used to cling to. This certainly puts you about as far left as any of the kooky fringe out there. Which is kinda funny considering how hard you used to argue to the contrary, when I called you on this phoney b.s. "moderate" tag in the not too distant past.

Bite me.

To be honest, I'm still and always have been conservative-leaning on many social issues-- it's the Bush economics that I have a BIG problem with.

...which I won't bother to go into here. Because I don't have to justify myself to you, or anyone else.

Good day.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

"And speaking as someone who (for the time being) lacks health coverage, I would take Oregon's would-have-been, imperfect, single-payer system any day over the employer-based system we have now."

So much for that "moderate" tag you used to cling to. This certainly puts you about as far left as any of the kooky fringe out there. Which is kinda funny considering how hard you used to argue to the contrary, when I called you on this phoney b.s. "moderate" tag in the not too distant past.

Bite me.

To be honest, I'm still and always have been conservative-leaning on many social issues-- it's the Bush economics that I have a BIG problem with.

...which I won't bother to go into here. Because I don't have to justify myself to you, or anyone else.

Good day.

Is this the part where we sing Kumbaya? :lol:

Is this the part where we sing Kumbaya? :lol:

Is this the part where we sing Kumbaya? :lol:

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

Al Qaida, or some other terrorist organization, is going to try to pull off another big terrorist strike. As a terrorist once said, we have to get lucky every time...they only have to get lucky once. Next week, next month or next year, they will get lucky. I suspect that this will push America over the edge. When 1000 bodies become a repeating occurrance instead of just a freak, or when our transportation of products and produce is paralysed, or whatever the next 9-1-1 is, I feel we will say "Enough is enough" and go on a Crusade to end terrorism, which will almost certainly ignite a Clash between the West and Islam. And if I am right, 9-1-1 was the first strike in this Clash.

...at which time everyone will realize that 911 was what we at T4T call the Fourth Turning Catalyst, not just the 65% of us posters who believe so. The second big attack will herald the 4T Social Moment, the Regeneracy, at which time we will perhaps start bombing the s&*t out of Saudi Arabia. As XoE said on another thread, "it is they who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001 (not Iraq), and they'll do it again".

No, they didn't.

The House of Saud is not our friend except as an ally of convenience, but they are the lesser evil at the moment. Did some of their members actively give money to bin Laden? Probably. Does that mean bombing Saudi Arabia makes any kind of sense? No.

The War on Terrorism is, in almost the literal sense, a 'police action'. Like all battles against crime, it is going to be unending, no matter who gets elected or what they do. It can be minimized, but probably never eliminated.

In practice, as with everything in the real world, we'll make deals, sparing lesser terrorists in order to go after greater terrorists.

As for 4T, I predict that if the price of gasoline starts soaring seriously, we're going to find out just how 'unified' Amerians really are right now.
With every day that passes, America falls further back into 3T mode, and they probably will as long as the Silent remain the dominant generation, since they're constanty throwing water on the fire behind the scenes.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

Al Qaida, or some other terrorist organization, is going to try to pull off another big terrorist strike. As a terrorist once said, we have to get lucky every time...they only have to get lucky once. Next week, next month or next year, they will get lucky. I suspect that this will push America over the edge. When 1000 bodies become a repeating occurrance instead of just a freak, or when our transportation of products and produce is paralysed, or whatever the next 9-1-1 is, I feel we will say "Enough is enough" and go on a Crusade to end terrorism, which will almost certainly ignite a Clash between the West and Islam. And if I am right, 9-1-1 was the first strike in this Clash.

...at which time everyone will realize that 911 was what we at T4T call the Fourth Turning Catalyst, not just the 65% of us posters who believe so. The second big attack will herald the 4T Social Moment, the Regeneracy, at which time we will perhaps start bombing the s&*t out of Saudi Arabia. As XoE said on another thread, "it is they who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001 (not Iraq), and they'll do it again".

No, they didn't.

The House of Saud is not our friend except as an ally of convenience, but they are the lesser evil at the moment. Did some of their members actively give money to bin Laden? Probably. Does that mean bombing Saudi Arabia makes any kind of sense? No.

The War on Terrorism is, in almost the literal sense, a 'police action'. Like all battles against crime, it is going to be unending, no matter who gets elected or what they do. It can be minimized, but probably never eliminated.

In practice, as with everything in the real world, we'll make deals, sparing lesser terrorists in order to go after greater terrorists.

As for 4T, I predict that if the price of gasoline starts soaring seriously, we're going to find out just how 'unified' Amerians really are right now.
With every day that passes, America falls further back into 3T mode, and they probably will as long as the Silent remain the dominant generation, since they're constanty throwing water on the fire behind the scenes.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

Al Qaida, or some other terrorist organization, is going to try to pull off another big terrorist strike. As a terrorist once said, we have to get lucky every time...they only have to get lucky once. Next week, next month or next year, they will get lucky. I suspect that this will push America over the edge. When 1000 bodies become a repeating occurrance instead of just a freak, or when our transportation of products and produce is paralysed, or whatever the next 9-1-1 is, I feel we will say "Enough is enough" and go on a Crusade to end terrorism, which will almost certainly ignite a Clash between the West and Islam. And if I am right, 9-1-1 was the first strike in this Clash.

...at which time everyone will realize that 911 was what we at T4T call the Fourth Turning Catalyst, not just the 65% of us posters who believe so. The second big attack will herald the 4T Social Moment, the Regeneracy, at which time we will perhaps start bombing the s&*t out of Saudi Arabia. As XoE said on another thread, "it is they who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001 (not Iraq), and they'll do it again".

No, they didn't.

The House of Saud is not our friend except as an ally of convenience, but they are the lesser evil at the moment. Did some of their members actively give money to bin Laden? Probably. Does that mean bombing Saudi Arabia makes any kind of sense? No.

The War on Terrorism is, in almost the literal sense, a 'police action'. Like all battles against crime, it is going to be unending, no matter who gets elected or what they do. It can be minimized, but probably never eliminated.

In practice, as with everything in the real world, we'll make deals, sparing lesser terrorists in order to go after greater terrorists.

As for 4T, I predict that if the price of gasoline starts soaring seriously, we're going to find out just how 'unified' Amerians really are right now.
With every day that passes, America falls further back into 3T mode, and they probably will as long as the Silent remain the dominant generation, since they're constanty throwing water on the fire behind the scenes.

Yes, the 9/11 attack triggered a Fourth Turning.

Up until the 2002 election, the jury was still out. This might have been a senseless 3T tragedy--sort of the Nicole Simpson/Ron Goldstein murder x 1500. That changed when 53% of the voters gave Bush a mandate via control of both houses of Congress.

Ironically, it may not have been the attack that triggered this realignment so much as the Democratic response to it. The offyear elections in 2001 seemed 3T to the hilt: Democrats won in New Jersey and Virginia, and a RINO won in NYC, by playing to local concerns. That, however, was before Patrick Leahy started crying about how the poor, innocent, al Qaeda terrorists were being mistreated in Guantanamo. He'd never blinked an eye when American citizens had their FBI files pulled by Craig Livingstone, but, hey, those Americans hadn't sanctified themselves by incinerating a skyscraper's worth of New Yorkers. At that moment, 9/11 changed from an "event" into a political crossroads.

Yes, the 9/11 attack triggered a Fourth Turning.

Up until the 2002 election, the jury was still out. This might have been a senseless 3T tragedy--sort of the Nicole Simpson/Ron Goldstein murder x 1500. That changed when 53% of the voters gave Bush a mandate via control of both houses of Congress.

Ironically, it may not have been the attack that triggered this realignment so much as the Democratic response to it. The offyear elections in 2001 seemed 3T to the hilt: Democrats won in New Jersey and Virginia, and a RINO won in NYC, by playing to local concerns. That, however, was before Patrick Leahy started crying about how the poor, innocent, al Qaeda terrorists were being mistreated in Guantanamo. He'd never blinked an eye when American citizens had their FBI files pulled by Craig Livingstone, but, hey, those Americans hadn't sanctified themselves by incinerating a skyscraper's worth of New Yorkers. At that moment, 9/11 changed from an "event" into a political crossroads.

Yes, the 9/11 attack triggered a Fourth Turning.

Up until the 2002 election, the jury was still out. This might have been a senseless 3T tragedy--sort of the Nicole Simpson/Ron Goldstein murder x 1500. That changed when 53% of the voters gave Bush a mandate via control of both houses of Congress.

Ironically, it may not have been the attack that triggered this realignment so much as the Democratic response to it. The offyear elections in 2001 seemed 3T to the hilt: Democrats won in New Jersey and Virginia, and a RINO won in NYC, by playing to local concerns. That, however, was before Patrick Leahy started crying about how the poor, innocent, al Qaeda terrorists were being mistreated in Guantanamo. He'd never blinked an eye when American citizens had their FBI files pulled by Craig Livingstone, but, hey, those Americans hadn't sanctified themselves by incinerating a skyscraper's worth of New Yorkers. At that moment, 9/11 changed from an "event" into a political crossroads.

Dominic:

That changed when 53% of the voters gave Bush a mandate via control of both houses of Congress.

Ah, such a sublime bit of spin.

It wasn't 53% of the voters, it was 53% of those who bothered to vote.

It wasn't a mandate for Bush, it was a rebuke to the Democrats -- one they richly deserved, I might add.

And while it did indeed provide control of both houses of Congress, should the Democrats rediscover their soul as a result (of which there are early signs), what price victory? The victory of the right is assured when the nation has no major liberal party. When it acquires one again, the danger to the right's agenda increases (from zero).

Dominic:

That changed when 53% of the voters gave Bush a mandate via control of both houses of Congress.

Ah, such a sublime bit of spin.

It wasn't 53% of the voters, it was 53% of those who bothered to vote.

It wasn't a mandate for Bush, it was a rebuke to the Democrats -- one they richly deserved, I might add.

And while it did indeed provide control of both houses of Congress, should the Democrats rediscover their soul as a result (of which there are early signs), what price victory? The victory of the right is assured when the nation has no major liberal party. When it acquires one again, the danger to the right's agenda increases (from zero).

Dominic:

That changed when 53% of the voters gave Bush a mandate via control of both houses of Congress.

Ah, such a sublime bit of spin.

It wasn't 53% of the voters, it was 53% of those who bothered to vote.

It wasn't a mandate for Bush, it was a rebuke to the Democrats -- one they richly deserved, I might add.

And while it did indeed provide control of both houses of Congress, should the Democrats rediscover their soul as a result (of which there are early signs), what price victory? The victory of the right is assured when the nation has no major liberal party. When it acquires one again, the danger to the right's agenda increases (from zero).

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

That changed when 53% of the voters gave Bush a mandate via control of both houses of Congress.

53% of the vote is a mandate, now?

that's rich.


TK